Spanish lesson in defending democracy

THE result of the Spanish general election and the fight against terrorism have one thing in common — a wish to defend democracy.

The Spanish voted the Popular Party (PP) out of government three days after ten bombs went off in Madrid killing 201 and injuring over 1,600 people.

The government led by Jose Maria Aznar had insisted on siding with the US in the war on Iraq despite 90% of the Spanish people being against it.

Before the bombing there were all the signs the electorate were willing to live with Aznar's decision and the centre right party was expected to scrape back in with a reduced majority.

Some have suggested the bombing made people change their vote and have accused the electorate of giving into the terrorists by punishing the party that sent troops to Iraq.

But that is not the impression one got from talking to dozens of people before and after the vote.

Any who did change the way they intended to vote, did so because they believed the Popular Party tried to cover up the truth and lied to them about the bombs.

The government insisted ETA was to blame from the outset, and kept to that line despite the mounting evidence that some other group could be to blame.

Foreign Minister Ana Palacio instructed Spanish embassies to place the blame on ETA, the Basque separatist movement.

The government insisted a UN resolution condemning the bombing blame ETA. Several countries including the Germans held out, but it's difficult not to give in when the death toll mounts by the hour.

Finally, hours after arresting suspects who did not seem to have any ETA links, and finding a videotape from an al-Qaida type group claiming responsibility, the government began to admit it might not be ETA.

The Spanish public have seemed happy enough for their government to stamp down on ETA over the past few years to the point of breaking international conventions on human rights.

But Aznar's government feared their stance on the Iraq war would cause the public to blame them for the Madrid atrocity.

While some did insist that Aznar had blood on his hands, most believe terrorism cannot be justified in this way and so were unwilling to punish him and his government for the work of the terrorists.

However, the electorate was willing to punish him for trying to save his political hide by covering up and lying to them.

In a democracy, elected politicians sometimes make decisions they feel are for the good of the state, even when those decisions are unpopular. But lying to the electorate is not democracy.

The next step is for the EU to get its act together and settle down to fighting that threat to democracy terrorism. The decision to invade Iraq and the rows it created between EU member states, and with the US, was a diversion at the worst possible time.

When countries should have been learning to work together to defeat this terrorism, they were taking the easy options going to war and having diplomatic rows.

Hopefully the politicians have learned enough lessons and will get down to the real business of defending democracy.